If this is your first visit, you may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Standard Parameters

I recently received my nodal ninja MKII3 and I have already created my first panoramic image (is it ok to say panorama?)! The result is outstanding compared to other panoramas I have made with hand held images and with my own homemade panoramic mount (awful!!). There are a few minor stitching errors but that is most likely because I did not properly align the camera on the mount with respect to the no-paralax point.

Anyways, I have not yet published it on the web because I am having issues coming up with a good quality yet low sized immersive panorama (flash tour). So my question is: What are the standard parameters most people use when creating 360x180 panoramas and publishing them to the web?

So far, I have been able to create a panorama no larger than about 20,000 by 10,000 pixels at a JPEG quality of 12/12. That&#039;s 200 megapixels! It took Autopano Giga 3 and a half hours to stitch it all together on my notebook. The image is spectacular but it is way too big to put on the internet. So I am wondering what is a more acceptable size? I like the huge image and it is great, but is it too much? Maybe 10,000 by 5,000? 360cities, requires a minimum size of 6,000 by 3,000.

Also, when creating the tour what are the best parameters to use (specifically using autopano tour)? With Autopano Tour I have made nice tours with the size set to maximum (5000), jpeg quality set to maximum (12) and the cutting size set to 1200. The tour had an amazing amount of detail, but it took up way to much memory to be feasible on the internet.

Re: Standard Parameters

Also, when creating the tour what are the best parameters to use (specifically using autopano tour)? With Autopano Tour I have made nice tours with the size set to maximum (5000), jpeg quality set to maximum (12) and the cutting size set to 1200. The tour had an amazing amount of detail, but it took up way to much memory to be feasible on the internet.

In fact you can use and publish these panos without problems on Internet but be sure to publish them with AutoPano Tour in separate elements There is an option where you can embed everything in one flash file (not good for publication on internet) or you can publish everything separated. In that last case you&#039;ll get a lot more files but it&#039;ll use tiles system that is very efficient for publication of large panos Just give it a try, you should be happily surprised by result !

Re: Standard Parameters

So you are saying that I can publish my panoramas in the largest resolution possible. Here is the same panorama as before but in a new tour: http://vcm.laosteria.ca/panos/dinnin...inningroom.swf. The cube faces are 5000x5000 pixels (but are cut up). It takes me a long time (about a minute and a half) to have the panorama fully downloaded. This is a really long time. (it could just be my own computer, I will have to try some other one). Is this acceptable? What size do most people render there panoramas at: 500, 100, 50, 10, 5 megapixels?

Re: Standard Parameters

For ordinary high quality full screen panoramas, the recommendation is to generate the spherical panorama from a 6000x3000 equirectangular image, with a cubic tile size of 1910 (i.e. 6000/pi). With a quality (compression) settting of 70% in Pano2VR, this gives a final .mov or .swf file of less than 3MB, which gives generally acceptable download times. All those on my web page conform more-or-less to those settings: http://www.johnhpanos.com/sphericl.htm. You can judge for youself whether that standard is adequate to meet your requirements. KRPano enables multiresolution resolution panoramas to be produced in which small tiles get loaded on demand. For suitable highly detailed subects that benefit from this technique, the user does not have to wait for the entire huge panorama image file to be downloaded before it can be fully explored.

Re: Standard Parameters

Thank you John for the information. I love your panoramas. They are wonderful works.

The only thing is, I already have autopano giga and autopano tour, so I would like to use those systems rather than purchasing more software. Also, I find those programs very easy to use and understand. So in your opinion 6000 x 3000 pixels is a good sized panorama.

Anyways, here is another question:

Which is better: a simple panorama where each side of a cube is represented by a single image; or a multires panorama in which each cube face is divided into many images? I think that the second option is better. Here is my theory: If each face is made up of one image and each image takes 10 seconds to download, then it will take 60 seconds or 1 minute to be able to see the entire panorama.

On the other hand, if the cube faces are comprised of a pyramid of images (many levels, with each lower level made up of smaller and smaller images but all at the same size), it will take a lot less time to see the entire panorama. Example: a panorama is made up of 6 cube faces, with each face having 3 levels and each level cutting up the previous level&#039;s images in four. This means there will be a total of (6x1)+(6x4)+(24x4)=6+24+96=126 images. If each image takes a second to load (because they are small: let&#039;s say 1000 by 1000 pixels), it will take 126/60=2.1 minutes to load all the images. But, because the images are loaded as needed and at the start only the first level images are needed to see the whole panorama, it will take 6x1=6 seconds to see the whole panorama.

So, I think that the multires system is better, but it does take up more memory and in total takes more time to load. What do other people think or prefer? (can I say that john agrees that the second option is best?)